The Mind is the Body is the Spirit and so forth.

The Mind is the Body is the Mind

mind |mīnd|
noun
1 the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought: as the thoughts ran through his mind, he came to a conclusion | people have the price they are prepared to pay settled in their minds.
• a person's mental processes contrasted with physical action: I wrote a letter in my mind.
2 a person's intellect: his keen mind.
• a person's memory: the company's name slips my mind .
• a person identified with their intellectual faculties: he was one of the greatest minds of his time.
3 a person's attention: I expect my employees to keep their minds on the job.
• the will or determination to achieve something: anyone can lose weight if they set their mind to it.

Oxford Dictionary

Definition of MIND
1
: recollection, memory
2
a : the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons
b : the conscious mental events and capabilities in an organism
c : the organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism

Merriam Webster

A mind (pron.: /ˈmaɪnd/) is the complex of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, thinking, reasoning, perception, and judgement—a characteristic of human beings, but which also may apply to other life forms.[3][4]

A long tradition of inquiries in philosophy, religion, psychology and cognitive science has sought to develop an understanding of what mind is and what are its distinguishing properties. The main questions regarding the nature of mind is its relation to the physical brain and nervous system – a question which is often framed as the Mind-body problem, which considers whether mind is somehow separate from physical existence (dualism and idealism[5]), deriving from and reducible to physical phenomena such as neurological processes(physicalism), or whether the mind is identical with the brain or some activity of the brain.[6] Another question concerns which types of beings are capable of having minds, for example whether mind is exclusive to humans, possessed also by some or all animals, by all living things, or whether mind can also be a property of some types of man-made machines.

Wikipedia

These are some common definitions of “mind” from various sources; but this conclusion by Wikipedia is my personal favorite:

Whatever its relation to the physical body it is generally agreed that mind is that which enables a being to have subjective awareness and intentionality towards their environment, to perceive and respond to stimuli with some kind of agency, and to have consciousness, including thinking and feeling.[3][7]

What is “that which enables” us to be conscious and aware? What is that “entity” and “complex” they describe as the mind? I think the answer’s quite obvious.

In order to be able to do anything, one must first be born and be living; it is a necessary prerequisite to be in the universe before you can perceive it. In order to perceive anything, one must first be possessed of senses. It’s obvious that to see one must have eyes. But the eyes cannot see on their own, for they must be attached to a brain—indeed they are a part of the brain itself. The brain needs a skull to protect it because of it’s fragility. The brain and skull must be connected to the spinal cord, which must be supported, along with the entire nervous system, bound with sinew and tendon, by the muscle and the bones of the skeleton. Somewhere in the core resides the digestive, respiratory, endocrine, and circulatory systems doing their constant duties while enclosed in the safety of the ribcage and beyond. Finally, all of it must be wrapped together in the biggest, maybe even the most important organ, the surface layer skin, where the body meets the rest of the universe.

We can understand that a brain cannot think on its own; it’s not the brain doing the thinking. Ears cannot hear on their own; ears aren’t what are hearing. Skin cannot feel on it’s own; it’s not the skin doing the feeling. There is an “entity” here doing all this. There is a “complex” of functions, organs and organism happening here. It is “that which enables a being to have subjective awareness and intentionality towards their environment, to perceive and respond to stimuli with some kind of agency, and to have consciousness, including thinking and feeling.” It is the being itself—the body, the mind, the soul, the organism, the psych, consciousness, awareness, the self, the human being—all words used to describe the same thing.

Let’s face it—there is no mind, no ego, no soul, no body, no spirit. We should rid these words of too much lofty reverence and recognize them for what they are. They are linguistic conveniences and words that label states of appearances and ideas about the same thing; words to describe facets of a multi-faceted stone, a particular, an entirely unique entity, the individual we call Ourselves or I.

Eliminative Materialism & Nominalism

Will ridding words such as these from philosophy, neuroscience and psychology allow us to proceed in the right direction?

Yes my OP is overly dramatic, and maybe it would be too premature to remove the mind from thought, but what I am proposing is a form of eliminative materialism and nominalism, the fairly dangerous idea that mental states, qualia, consciousness, universals, the mind and the like don’t necessarily exist outside their linguistic function.

Adopting this view would radicalize theory of mind, philosophy, psychology, religion and neuroscience.

Eliminative materialism entails unsettling consequences not just about our conception of the mind, but also about the nature of morality, action, social and legal conventions, and practically every other aspect of human activity. As Jerry Fodor puts it, “if commonsense psychology were to collapse, that would be, beyond comparison, the greatest intellectual catastrophe in the history of our species …” (1987, p. xii). Thus, eliminative materialism has stimulated various projects partly designed to vindicate ordinary mental states and establish their respectability in a sophisticated account of the mind. For example, several projects pursued by philosophers in recent years have attempted to provide a reductive account of the semantic content of propositional attitudes that is entirely naturalistic (i.e., an account that only appeals to straightforward causal-physical relations and properties). Much of the impetus for these projects stems in part from the recognition that eliminative materialism cannot be as easily dismissed as earlier writers, like C. D. Broad, had originally assumed.

Should we consider it?

Eliminative Materialism
Nominalism

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

Let’s face it—there is no mind, no ego, no soul, no body, no spirit. We should rid these words of too much lofty reverence and recognize them for what they are. They are linguistic conveniences and words that label states of appearances and ideas about the same thing; words to describe facets of a multi-faceted stone, a particular, an entirely unique entity, the individual we call Ourselves or I.

If I follow you correctly, we could go further and say that there's no table, chair, room, tree, sun, human, universe, etc., etc. Said otherwise, All symbols, All words will never be able to adequately encapsulate reality as it presents itself to us. Again, said differently, richness of experience will never be able to be decently encapsulated into the extreme poverty of words.

We could also simplify everything and say that reality has only two inseparable aspects: one static and the other dynamic. A perceiver and what is perceived: the Purusha (witness) and Prakriti (Everything that is witnessed - e.g.: what we call the "body", "mind", etc., etc.) of the Hindus.

In this context, we can ask ourselves if the interposition of language, thoughts, etc., between the two said aspects, are obstacles to the perception of reality. In other words, can the projection of personal thoughts, our mental verbiage, superimposed language, emotions, etc. block/veil the perception of 'what is' in all its purity? Is the fundamental mode of knowledge of 'consciousness' direct and thus more effective than a now prevalent indirect "intellectual" knowledge?

Questions, questions... I'll stop here before going off-topic.

As the wind glides through the harp and the strings speak,
So the Spirit of the Lord speaks through my members, and I speak through His love.

Ode 6

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

The Mind is the Body is the Spirit and so forth

Once again, this is a path that must be chosen by the individual.

My personal view is that we are first, a spiritual entity that is trapped, as it were in this physical machine. We co-exist with what could be described as a kind of firmware... otherwise known as instinctive persona, and through this life, we often battle for control of the machine.

Now, as to the 'why' this was set up this way? Take your pick... you can call on a god or some alien intelligence or one from another dimension. We may be the product of a life form far beyond our basic understanding. This can be argued because we are, ourselves, driven to recreate in our own image as well, as is demonstrated in the effort to realize what is today called AI.

So, we are a chip off the old block, as it were.

One of the most basic truths of who and what we are define our species as being individualistic, willful, opinionated and regardless of how we may all focus on a sing point of light, we will never, ever all agree on its exact form or meaning.

This is but one facet of the human condition and one that does help define us.

reply to post by D1ss1dent


Great point, but that would be considered Solipsism. With Nominalism and Eliminative Materialism it's a little different.

We know a table exists because we can behold it. We can pick it up, smell it, examine it, and quantify it easily. Each table is a particular (philosophical jargon meaning a particular object) and a concrete object (something physical). If it looks, acts and feels like a table, it is a table. It is doing what a table does.

The problem with the words "soul", "mind", "spirit" etc. is that they aren't concrete, they are abstract. We have nothing to examine, to hold, to see, to smell, in regards to those words except the living human being, the reality that those words are meant to abstract.

It's more difficult to do this with the word "body" which is physical. But when we use "body", we don't consider the unique aspects of that particular concrete human.

A living human isn't merely body, it is something else, namely a living human organism. It isn't until the life of that human is gone where we can see merely a body, a corpse. When we speak of a living friend, we don't consider them merely a human body, but a human, a particular concrete human. "Body" describes only the physical similarities that humans share, while not considering or encompassing that which makes that particular human unique.

Therefore, though there are human bodies, the term doesn't fully explain whether those bodies are functioning living organisms or not, and becomes no longer useful in describing the fully functional, dynamic, unique and singular human being. That's why we say his body or her body or my body, because it is implied there is something—the thing which we call his or her or my—possessed of physicality, that something is the unique particular living human organism.

reply to post by redoubt

Once again, this is a path that must be chosen by the individual.

My personal view is that we are first, a spiritual entity that is trapped, as it were in this physical machine. We co-exist with what could be described as a kind of firmware... otherwise known as instinctive persona, and through this life, we often battle for control of the machine.

Now, as to the 'why' this was set up this way? Take your pick... you can call on a god or some alien intelligence or one from another dimension. We may be the product of a life form far beyond our basic understanding. This can be argued because we are, ourselves, driven to recreate in our own image as well, as is demonstrated in the effort to realize what is today called AI.

So, we are a chip off the old block, as it were.

One of the most basic truths of who and what we are define our species as being individualistic, willful, opinionated and regardless of how we may all focus on a sing point of light, we will never, ever all agree on its exact form or meaning.

This is but one facet of the human condition and one that does help define us.

I would say this is a problem brought about "common-sense psychology". There is nothing that shows we are possessed of a spirit or any sort, yet the theory has persisted since the times of the ancients. This problem can be rectified by removing terms such as "mind" or "spirit" or "soul" from scientific endeavours. But such a move would be so drastic it will probably never catch on.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by D1ss1dent

If I follow you correctly, we could go further and say that there's no table, chair, room, tree, sun, human, universe, etc., etc. Said otherwise, All symbols, All words will never be able to adequately encapsulate reality as it presents itself to us. Again, said differently, richness of experience will never be able to be decently encapsulated into the extreme poverty of words.

We could also simplify everything and say that reality has only two inseparable aspects: one static and the other dynamic. A perceiver and what is perceived: the Purusha (witness) and Prakriti (Everything that is witnessed - e.g.: what we call the "body", "mind", etc., etc.) of the Hindus...

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Great point, but that would be considered Solipsism....

I didn't express myself correctly. Let me reformulate the 2nd paragraph:

We could also simplify everything to the extreme and say that reality has two inseparable aspects: one static and the other dynamic. What perceives and what is perceived: the Purusha (a pure witness within everyone of us - that doesn't need to rely on words, etc. -) and Prakriti (Everything that is witnessed, including All fields - not only our personal constituents/projections but also everything else e.g.: all 'layers' of others... their 'physical', 'mental' layers plus everything in between and above that can or cannot be named -. That would be a better definition of Purusha) of the Hindus... A coexisting personal/local and impersonal/non-local aspect. Sounds far fetched, isn't it? It's probably not.

In that sense, there would be no solipsism...

From my understanding and slant:


The mind, body, and spirit do not exist without the other it is a complex or a system.


The mind is the first of the equation. You could say thought comes before form and thought (the mind) creates form. The body is a creature of the mind and the mind effectively defines its body. The spirit is the energy system (the chakra or energy center system) and the shuttle by which energy moves through it.

The mind, body, and spirit complex exists before and after death. The physical body is merely one of the energy bodies that is activated (orange ray energy body) and when it perishes the entity activates a different energy body which is more dense with consciousness (most often the indigo ray body) until a new incarnative experience is decided upon.

>>
In order to be able to do anything, one must first be born and be living; it is a necessary prerequisite to be in the universe before you can perceive it. In order to perceive anything, one must first be possessed of senses. It’s obvious that to see one must have eyes.
>>

Interesting you bring this up since I just have a NDE thread elsewhere since I am reading a few books about this right now.

Interesting, because people who have NDEs (with OBEs and all what goes with it) are reporting the use of all their "senses" while they are clinical dead, flat lining in an ER, car accident or similar.

While they are "dead" with no brain function and obviously no functioning senses, they have a consciousness, can hear, feel, see, communicate and that even "better" as they did in their normal state before they had the NDE.

There is a LOT of evidence that the "mind" (ie. soul, consciousness etc.) is not bound to the body and can and does exist without it. I DO admit that the idea to be able to see/hear etc. without physically working organs is intriguing, but this is all what this points to.

reply to post by 11118

The mind, body, and spirit do not exist without the other it is a complex or a system.

No. The mind, the spirit and the body are the same thing: the human organism.

reply to post by flexy123

While they are "dead" with no brain function and obviously no functioning senses, they have a consciousness, can hear, feel, see, communicate and that even "better" as they did in their normal state before they had the NDE.

Dead means buried, gone, no-longer functioning, the permanent cessation of life. "Near-death" means that they were near to death, but never reached it. Anyone who is able to talk about their NDE never died in the first place; they nearly died, meaning, the body is still functioning.